The Liberals Utter Lack of Fundamental Principles

By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

On election night, in her victory speech, California’s newest Senator had this to say…“Whatever the results of the presidential election tonight, we know that we have a task in front of us. We know the stakes are high. When we have been attacked and when our ideals and fundamental ideals are being attacked, do we retreat or do we fight? I say we fight!”

Make no mistake, the “ideals and fundamental ideals” of which Harris spoke of are not hers alone, they are the “ideals and fundamental ideals” of the liberal/socialist party, otherwise known as democrats.

But what are those ideals, fundamental or otherwise?

Continue reading

Neil Gorsuch…From Judge to Justice

By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

Did ya hear some of the crap that was being spewed at the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings the other day, from the mouths of liberal manure spreaders?

Take Al Franken for instance…he literally told Judge Gorsuch…who, by the way, will soon be JUSTICE Gorsuch…“Your Constitution isn’t MY Constitution!”

Franken, I suspect, was 100% correct…as Judge…I mean JUSTICE Gorsuch’s Constitution is the one written and ratified by our nation’s Founders and Framers…while Franken’s is in manifesto form penned for the ilk of communist parties everywhere.

That said…

Continue reading

Our Greatest Domestic Threat is Now an Open Seat

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots http://www.americanpbn.com/

Suddenly, with the death of Justice Scalia, the appointment of a ninth Justice to the Supreme Court has takesup 1n on more weight than most would have previously believed necessary in this, an election year.

Just as weighty as the decision as to who should nominate our next Supreme Court Justice is how any nominee will view Constitutional theory or how that person will interpret the Constitution.

Along those lines, there are five basic theories of Constitutional interpretation. Generally, those theories are as follows: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law. There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions. Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. Natural law (higher law, God’s law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called “originalists.” Persons who favor giving a more substantial weighting to precedent, consequences, or natural law are called “non-originalists.” In practice, disagreement between originalists and non-originalists often concerns whether to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to certain “fundamental rights” that are not explicitly protected in the text of the Constitution.

Continue reading